Pamela Geller vs Imam Anjem Choudary on Fox News, Hannity: 'You Want Her To Die!'

I find it a bit humorous that Pam Gellar is gushing about how they saved lives and how great of a job the police department did, like she is a prophet herself. How different would her story be if the two jihadis slaughtered a few dozen Americans before they were taken out?

originally posted by: beyondtruth
I find it a bit humorous that Pam Gellar is gushing about how they saved lives and how great of a job the police department did, like she is a prophet herself. How different would her story be if the two jihadis slaughtered a few dozen Americans before they were taken out?

I think that anyone who may have lost their lives would have been responsible because they participated willingly.

It's always nice to place blame though, isn't it.

originally posted by: beyondtruth
I find it a bit humorous that Pam Gellar is gushing about how they saved lives and how great of a job the police department did, like she is a prophet herself. How different would her story be if the two jihadis slaughtered a few dozen Americans before they were taken out?

You do know her group paid for additional security, right? I think it was $10,000.

After Charlie, who would be idiot enough to assume this was a free ride?

I'm sort of in the camp that says it isn't wise (perhaps even 'wrong') to antagonize irrational people who you know condone violence to enforce their irrationality. I would never enter a Mohammed-cartoon contest, because it seems completely unnecessary and provocative. It seems (and I don't know the lady, but just my perception based on limited knowledge) to be self-promotion first, and point making second. Just because there isn't anything illegal about it, doesn't make it wise or in good taste. It's certainly well within their legal-rights.

Having said that, nothing excuses the threat of violence/death upon people whom disagree with you, or whom have insulted you by cartoon or any other means. I can't fathom how anyone could demonize Geller in this story without implicating the other side. If it's done one thing it is to highlight (again) how a sizeable number of people in the world wouldn't hesitate to take your life over a cartoon and have voted themselves the right to dictate how you live from a distance. That's far more frightening and "distasteful" than Geller's provocation.

originally posted by: beezzer
I think that anyone who may have lost their lives would have been responsible because they participated willingly.

It's always nice to place blame though, isn't it.

I agree. If you attend such an event, you've sort of signed a tacit acceptance of the danger.

I'll take that a step further though and ask what if the jihadis had gone with a bombing at the highschool next door? Is she culpable in the same sense as some one who incites a riot? The real blame lies on whoever commits the crime, but is there some knowing-enticement toward crime in such action as Geller's? I don't know. It certainly seems irresponsible on some level.

a reply to: _Del_

Fanatics don't like gays, are upset over gay marriage, don't like women wearing short skirts either.

They can blow up anything and try to justify it by blaming . . . "how Denny's got their order wrong".

It doesn't matter, ultimately.

Sickos gonna be sickos regardless.

a reply to: beezzer

Don't forget about the abortion clinics.

a reply to: beezzer

I agree with that, but if you knowingly entice a sicko towards sickoing and it results in harm to someone else, do you bear any responsibility? Legally, probably not in this case. But morally?

This in no way excuses the sickos.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: beezzer

Don't forget about the abortion clinics.

Yep.

Now do we shut down abortion clinics so we don't "offend" them?

originally posted by: _Del_
a reply to: beezzer

I agree with that, but if you knowingly entice a sicko towards sickoing and it results in harm to someone else, do you bear any responsibility? Legally, probably not in this case. But morally?

This in no way excuses the sickos.

Enticing a sicko is a misnomer.

A cloudy day will entice a sicko.

A sad kitty meme will entice a sicko.

a reply to: beezzer

That's essentially strengthens the point. You are taking action which one can reasonably infer may end in harm to another. That's basically the legal definition of negligence.

If I knowingly place my child in the care of a sicko, does that meet the standard of negligence? I believe it would. I don't think I could excuse myself morally or legally by saying, "Sickos will sicko. A cloudy day might have enticed a sicko. My child may have been violated randomly at park by a sicko enticed by a sad kitty meme. You never know what would might set off a sicko"


The shooters weren't there because of a sad kitty meme or a cloudy day. They were there, and it could be reasonably inferred they might appear (which the added security tacitly admits) and might cause to another -- because of the nature of the event itself.

a reply to: _Del_

Then by your standards, we should fear doing anything that might set anyone off.

originally posted by: TsukiLunar
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

However, even you can tell she's doing it just to get a reaction. She doesn't actually care about the lives in danger or anything like that. He just wants to say Christianity is better than Islam. That's all she cares about. She has no noble intentions. She just wants to piss people off. She's doing a fine job of it.

Isn't she Jewish rather than Christian?

a reply to: _Del_

That's essentially strengthens the point. You are taking action which one can reasonably infer may end in harm to another. That's basically the legal definition of negligence.

Then pretty much everyone is responsible.

You do know her group paid for additional security, right? I think it was $10,000.

After Charlie, who would be idiot enough to assume this was a free ride?

I am aware of the additional security, but even the best security has lapses in coverage and the point of my post was that Pam Gellar was basking in the glory of the quick thinking officer like what went down was the plan all along. The whole thing could have easily gone the other way and I would assume that had it gone the other way Ms. Gellar would be singing a different tune.

I'm not putting blame on anyone. My personal opinion is the same as yours in that if you are courageous enough to attend one of these events then you assume all risks to your own personal safety.

I would like to pose a question to everyone. Thoughts on the events on Texas being related to some elaborate sting operation to draw jihaidis out into the open?? Possibly Federal Agencies or even Private Security firms with their own agendas..... Thoughts?? Ideas??

a reply to: beezzer

I avoid that which one might reasonably assume to result in harm to myself or others. Don't you? I think it hinges on the likelihood of harm. I don't think any of the examples you've given have the same likelihood of harm as a high-profile, deliberately provocative "Draw Mohammed" contest as an homage to the Charlie Hebdo incident.


I say this as a firmly entrenched member of the "Grow some thicker skin, and get the hell over it" camp. I also subscribe strongly to the "Why do you care what they think/say/do?" theory of sociology.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: _Del_

That's essentially strengthens the point. You are taking action which one can reasonably infer may end in harm to another. That's basically the legal definition of negligence.

Then pretty much everyone is responsible.

For...?

originally posted by: beyondtruth
I would like to pose a question to everyone. Thoughts on the events on Texas being related to some elaborate sting operation to draw jihaidis out into the open?? Possibly Federal Agencies or even Private Security firms with their own agendas..... Thoughts?? Ideas??

Not sure about the event itself, but I think it's safe to assume there are all sorts of operations to watch which moths are drawn to the flames of extremism.

a reply to: _Del_

The answer is in your post.

That's essentially strengthens the point. You are taking action which one can reasonably infer may end in harm to another. That's basically the legal definition of negligence.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

I think our definition of "reasonable" must be different.